megamitenseifandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:N00bKing
Shadow Yukiko First of all, there is NO need to wipe out the entire Symbolism section. The Shadows are VERY symbolic. I like symbolism because it adds depth and meaning. What do you mean by "it's incorrect"? And while opinions and wild mass guessing is generally frowned upon, that does not mean you erase EVERY plausible and possible speculation/theory. There is zero need to remove stuff like "The heart on her chest could be symbolic of Yukiko's possible desire to love and be loved." and the red feathers falling in the background could most definitely symbolize a bird being unable to fly. Unless you have proof that these interpretations are all wrong, then don't remove it. And what do you mean it has nothing to do with a phoenix? Shadow Yukiko uses an attack called "Burn to Ashes", which is very phoenix-like. Yukiko is represented by a red bird and its element is fire. Go figure. I don't think the picture from the Animation should be the first image either because it's missing Charming Prince and the cage. —AlexShepherd ツ 01:48, December 20, 2014 (UTC) :alex, "plausible analysis" means its speculation, and this wiki doesn't deal in speculation, just facts. unless its they're from the Word of God i'm betting all of the Symbolism sections are out of place here. Tathra (talk) 02:03, December 20, 2014 (UTC) ::Alex, I understand your frustration, but I didn't just go in there and remove all the information. I removed what was inaccurate, redundant, and mainly speculative. Anything pertinent was moved to an appropriate section, such as the "heart on her chest" example.--N00bKing (talk) 02:33, December 20, 2014 (UTC) ::Here is my explanation regarding the entire Symbolism section: ::As Yukiko represents the Priestess Arcana, Shadow Yukiko represents the reversed Priestess. ::Here, I added the link to reverse Priestess ::Being unable to make decisions and having a conflict of intellect are two things that are represented by the reversed Priestess. ::There's really no need for this since the link is provided. ::Shadow Yukiko represents Yukiko's inability to be independent. ::It's not so much an inability as it is circumstantial. ::She wants to get out of the town, but insists on someone helping her do it. ::This is already explained in the opening paragraph. ::Her instinct and intellect conflict as, while she wishes to be saved from her life, she runs from the party upon their first and second encounters. One who wants to be rescued keeps running from what she really wants. ::First off, there are grammatical errors here starting with "conflict as". Second, Yukiko isn't running away from the party, Shadow Yukiko is. This makes the idea, as a whole, very questionable. ::Yukiko feels she cannot escape Inaba and that taking charge of the inn would only limit her from what she really wants to do in the future. This would be the reason the Shadow has a large wingspan and a rather small cage. ::I moved this to the opening paragraph, minus the second sentence. See the very last comment here regarding the second sentence. ::During battle she summons an ally, Charming Prince. This is the manifestation of her wish for someone to save her. ::I moved this to the Profile section. ::Shadow Yukiko is similar to a phoenix, which dies and is reborn from its ashes, over and over again. This is symbolic of the tradition of the Amagi family. Like a phoenix, Yukiko uses Burn to Ashes, however, she uses it against the party instead of herself. This is symbolic of a phoenix trying to avoid its fate, or Yukiko trying to avoid becoming the next to inherit her inn. ::This is mainly what I was referring to in my description regarding incorrect information. The bird is a Vermilion bird, or Suzaku in Japanese. It represents the fire-element and symbolizes nothing more than Shadow Yukiko's Arcana. This would also explain why a Suzaku would cast a spell called "Burn to Ashes".N00bKing (talk) 03:23, December 20, 2014 (UTC) :::"The bird is a Vermilion bird, or Suzaku in Japanese." Where's your proof for this? —AlexShepherd ツ 03:27, December 20, 2014 (UTC) ::::from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermilion_Bird. --N00bKing (talk) 04:30, December 20, 2014 (UTC) ::::oops, forgot to mention that after you defeat the optional Boss in Yukiko's Castle, you can find a Suzaku Feather weapon for Yukiko (implying it was left after the battle with Shadow Yukiko).--N00bKing (talk) 04:58, December 20, 2014 (UTC) :::::Isn't that still technically an assumption though? After all, I don't remember Shadow Kanji having an Iron Plate, nor Shadow Mitsuo carrying the appearance of the Gaia Sword, and could just be an assumption. Also, there is a Persona called Phoenix in P2 and PQ, and there's a show called Phoenix Ranger Featherman R. Suzaku is also a Persona in P3, but Shadow Yukiko is missing the long tail depicted here. I don't think you can claim that as a fact. —AlexShepherd ツ 09:10, December 20, 2014 (UTC) ::::::I don't know if there's any way to be 100% sure of what you're asking. In general, the same can be said for the entirety of the Symbolism section and is mainly the reason behind my original edit to begin with. I feel as if I provided solid enough examples, though, to claim the change as being justifiable. I think this discussion, in itself, is a prime example of why Speculation + Wiki = Bad. --N00bKing (talk) 10:38, December 20, 2014 (UTC) :::::::I don't have any issues with speculation as long as it's marked as such. For example, I think my speculation that Shadow Yukiko is a phoenix and your speculation that it's a Suzaku are both valid, as long as you don't claim it as fact. —AlexShepherd ツ 14:15, December 20, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::I think you're missing the point... --N00bKing (talk) 16:14, December 20, 2014 (UTC) I may be intruding in the conversation, but the weapon's name does not reference Suzaku AT ALL. Its Japanese name is 孔雀の尾羽, which translates to Peacock Tail Feather. The Suzaku bit was the localization team making up stuff. G.A.S.A (talk) 17:30, December 20, 2014 (UTC) ::fighting over what you think it means, like you two are doing, is a very good reason to not allow speculation. also, interpretation is supposed to be a personal thing; everyone will get something different from it based on their own life and experiences; by 'telling' somebody how you interpret it, you're not allowing people their own interpretations. furthermore, by having it on this wiki, which is supposed to be an encyclopedia, you're making it sound like thats the official interpretation, like thats what the creators intended when you have absolutely no idea what the creators had in mind when they created it or what they wanted people to take from it. most creators intentionally leave things vague so that people can have their own interpretations. unless you have some kind of proof that it was created with that kind of symbology in mind (which would mean its no longer speculation), it doesn't belong here. Tathra (talk) 19:25, December 20, 2014 (UTC) :::Me and N00bKing aren't "FIGHTING" over it. Fighting is such a strong word. We're just having a simple discussion. And I'm fine with multiple interpretations, the more, the merrier. —AlexShepherd ツ 20:18, December 20, 2014 (UTC) ::you may be fine with it, but this isn't about you. stop acting so selfish. it doesn't matter if other wikis are fine with it, because we aren't other wikis. it doesn't matter if its fine on a different wiki that you admin because, again, we're not that wiki (and your use of appeal to authority is a straight-up logical fallacy). it was decided by this wiki's community long before either you or i joined that the pages would be just for factual information. if you'd like to challenge that or suggest a section specifically for fan-made theories, fine, but you don't do it by starting an edit war with somebody who's just trying to stick with this wiki's policy (and yes, i know its not in the manual of style, but every tiny little detail shouldn't have to be spelled out specifically, plus even the MoS is nothing more than agreed-upon guidelines that can be altered by community consensus). Tathra (talk) 21:35, December 20, 2014 (UTC) :::"it was decided by this wiki's community long before either you or i joined that the pages would be just for factual information." Where's your proof for this? I see nothing in the Manual of Style deterring against speculation and theories, NOR even a community consensus about this. —AlexShepherd ツ 10:11, December 21, 2014 (UTC) ::Category:Articles with unsourced statements and its accompanying Template:Fact. the fact that they exist and get used means we're intended to be a fact-based wiki (unless you can come up with some legitimate explanation why anyone would demand citations for a wiki that doesn't depend on facts). there's also the fact that you have 3 different people, one of them being an admin, telling you that its the current policy. like i said, if you'd like to try to change that, by all means, start a thread in the Forums and we'll see if the current community (that is, people who actually make edits and such here; based on how you're acting, i wouldn't put it past you to try to get people from the wiki you admin to help create a false majority) would like to change the policy or allow sections for fan-made theories, but starting an edit war with somebody who's just trying to enforce the current policy and then being unnecessarily recalcitrant is a good way to get people siding against you simply out of spite. Tathra (talk) 16:52, December 21, 2014 (UTC) :::Well, duh, wikis are factual by nature, and simply having those templates doesn't prove speculation/theories aren't allowed. It proves absolutely nothing and I have that template on my wiki too. We even have a speculation template. The "citation needed" template is just used when the information is questionable (e.g. Naoto's voice actor is _____.) This is the first time I've seen someone so vehemently anal about "This could represent..." or "It is possible that..." on a wiki. Again, you have no proof this is really the current policy, and I think stupid and ridiculous policies should be questioned. —AlexShepherd ツ 03:30, December 22, 2014 (UTC) ::"Well, duh, wikis are factual by nature" - so you admit it. now stop putting speculation on pages whose nature is to contain facts and stop arguing that its somehow allowed. Tathra (talk) 03:52, December 22, 2014 (UTC) :::Don't take what I said outside of context because I still STRONGLY believe reasonable speculation and interesting theories can provide valuable insight and depth and educational value. Wikis can still be factual by nature and have the potential to offer insight that may be missed in-game, and go the extra mile to be a true resource. —AlexShepherd ツ 04:56, December 22, 2014 (UTC) ::look man, you've had 3 different people tell you what the policy is (which, as far as this is concerned, is the official policy since its a majority - 3 vs 1 - and wiki policy is set by consensus/majority), and you've been informed the proper way to challenge the policy and suggest changes. if you choose to ignore that and just do your own thing, you're being disruptive, which is legitimate grounds for a ban. Tathra (talk) 08:00, December 22, 2014 (UTC) :::Only getting 4 people's input (one of which disagrees) is hardly enough for an entire wiki-wide policy change in my opinion. In the past, some consensus have had the input of 20-30 editors. And no, I'm not ignoring the policy, I still think it's a dumb policy. And I've been editing this wiki longer than you and N00bKing. —AlexShepherd ツ 11:07, December 22, 2014 (UTC)